9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lose as the certificate granted clearly permits the import of the said product. - C/402/2003-Mum - A/341/2011-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 2-8-2011 - Mr. S.S. Kang, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri Sanjay Kalra, Authorised Representative (JDR), for appellant Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for respondent Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan This is a departmental appeal filed against order-in-appeal No. 131/2003-MCH dated 13.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The facts in this case are briefly as follows. The importer, M/s. Asian Paints India Ltd., imported Hydroxy Ethyl Cellulose under a DFRC Licence No.0310167855 dated 20.11.2002 claiming duty exemption under Notification No.46/2002-Cus. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appeal are that the export product mentioned in the said SIO is 'Glass Fibre reinforced plastic product containing 70% Polyester Resin and 30% Glass Fibre by weight'. This shows that the export product contains 70% polyester resin and 30% glass fibre. According to Notification No.46/2002, what is permitted to be imported under DFRC is only materials of the same quality, technical characteristics and specifications used in the manufacture of export product. Since there is no evidence that hydroxy ethyl cellulose has been used in the manufacture of export product, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit under the aforesaid Notification. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that even though SIO No.1037 desc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the export product has not been subjected to any test at the time of export and, therefore, it is not possible to know at this point of time that what did the export product contain. In the absence of a positive finding that the export product did not contain hydroxy ethyl cellulose, it will not be possible to deny the benefit to import hydroxy ethyl cellulose as the certificate granted clearly permits the import of the said product. This position is also confirmed by the Joint DGFT's letter to the Commissioner referred to supra. In a similar set of situation, this Tribunal in the case of Global Exim vs. CC, Mumbai reported in 2010 (253) ELT 417 had held as follows: "Having allowed export of motors with input specifications as bearings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
